Wonkie believes one could not ask for a more accurate, brutal representation of the true state of South Africa than what was witnessed yesterday at Jacob Zuma’s parliamentary 2015 State of the Nation address. The comical event covered it all:

1. The pathetic, albeit scary, attempt by the national executive to muzzle citizens and journalists by illegally cutting mobile phone transmissions from within the parliamentary chamber. No doubt the ruling ANC party will justify this with some garbage rhetoric and find some lowly bearer to act as a scapegoat, but welcome South Africa, to the police state.

2. The television broadcast of SONA2015 itself reflects the state of the poor SABC leadership – convenient intermittent loss of audio and video footage, broadcasting the same voice overlapping itself so viewers can barely make out the content, zero coverage of the true chaos that was taking place on the floor. The best case scenario is that this was plain incompetence on the part of the SABC, the worst case of course, being that the ruling party is happily able to censor action against itself.

In the interests of transparency, below is a video of what actually took place in parliament when the EFF ‘leadership’ were forcibly removed:

Video courtesy: EWN

3. Most surprisingly, other than a few tweeters sitting on their high horses and all caught up with pomp and ceremony, many citizens were rooting for the likes of Julius Malema. Nobody really cares if the forum was inappropriate to raise questions about Zuma’s Nkandla home – perhaps on paper it was, however if one is unable to get resolution at the proper forums it could be argued that one is left with no choice but to adopt an unconventional, activist approach. After all, isn’t that how apartheid was ended?

4. Given that the opposition Democratic Alliance (DA) was asking questions based on point-of-order and privilege and they weren’t ejected from parliament, it is clear that the Baleka Mbete was acting with prejudice when it came to the EFF. Furthermore, disregarding rules and inviting armed police to remove members sets further precedent for the executive to do whatever they like when things aren’t going their way. But wait, given that there is already zero accountability in government they do that anyway so even that accurately reflects the state of the nation.

It should be pointed out, in fairness, that there is not much else the ANC could have done to control the situation. The EFF members would probably not have left willingly.

5. On to the actual address itself, it was as boring and content-free as usual (further evidenced by the number of MPs casually dozing off in the audience). Not that one expects detailed solutions in such a presentation, but some real leadership would be to clearly acknowledge the challenges for the gruesome messes that they are, and give some non-bureaucratic comfort that real action is going to be taken. Instead, South Africa gets the feeling another 5-year planning committee consisting of some pseudo-intellectual gnats will be assembled at great tax-payer expense, and that the only problem they will manage to resolve at the end of it will be how to keep the lights on in Nkandla.

6. As though viewing the parliamentary spectacle were not enough, Zuma also declared a leap forward in much-needed local land reform – by stating that foreign nationals will not be allowed to purchase land outright in South Africa. Sigh.

In short, a pessimist would suggest that this is a glimpse into South Africa’s rather lawless future. What do you think?

PS: If you would like a transcript of the entire presidential State of the Nation speech, please visit The Presidency website.

If watching the debacle in Cape Town at the 2015 State of the Nation address is the last straw and you’re ready to flee from South Africa, then now is probably the time to keep your fingers crossed when you buy lottery tickets online – rest assured that you will not be alone in doing so!

Wonkie readers that are based in India will no doubt be fascinated at South African bureaucracy, especially after SONA2015. If you are based in India, please feel free to visit this top Indian casino website or this revamped Online Lottery India website instead.

Freedom Front Plus leader and deputy agriculture minister, Pieter Mulder recently made some controversial comments about land reform in South Africa. Wonkie suspects that Mr Mulder was sensing the media void created by the lack of Julius Malema and courageously tried to step up to the plate. Unfortunately, he came close but didn’t earn his Noddy badge this time. At least, he needed to have rounded off his statements with a violent death threat, or an appeal for white mass action to come close.

The redistribution of wealth and land is one of the most hotly debated topics in South Africa, evident from the super-popular Desmond Tutu tax the whites cartoon which attracted over 300 comments on Wonkie. Usually, the debate revolves around how much redistribution is enough, rather than whether it is necessary or not. Mr Mulder, however, adventurously decided to leap that trivial issue by questioning whether land redistribution was even necessary at all.

“Africans in particular never in the past lived in the whole of South Africa … There is sufficient proof that there were no Bantu-speaking people in the Western Cape and north-western Cape…” – Pieter Mulder

In his parliamentary address, Mr Mulder subsequently claimed that black Bantu-speaking people had no historical claim to some 40% of the arable land in South Africa. Before slapping Mr Mulder with the stupidity sticker however, consider the fact that his statement may in fact be true. If the argument were about entitlement because of who was here first, his statement may even have warranted some valid consideration. However, Mr Mulder appears to be a sound product of the South African education system and has wound up adding apples and apples to get bananas.

The sound argument for land reform in South Africa is not based on who was here first – it never was (other than by equally stupid commentators at the other end of Mulder’s political spectrum). It is based on the fact that the apartheid-era Land Act restricted ownership of some 87% of South Africa to whites only. Non-white South Africans were unequivocally instructed where they could live and own land, and where they could not. It is the harsh consequence of that very law that now drives the need for restitution.

Since by definition a discriminatory law is unfair, restitution in this case practically amounts to some agreed land redistribution deal. The debate to restore equity thus has to be about how much is fair and how to do it – as it is in the case of redistribution of wealth, argument a la Tutu.

No doubt, many young white South Africans will feel they are being hard done by the likes of currently discriminatory laws – BEE, affirmative action, even potentially land reform. After all, they weren’t responsible for the apartheid government – in fact, they probably never even had the opportunity to vote for it. So why should they suffer for something they had no control over?

The answer lies in an analogy that can be drawn from US law – it’s called the fruit of the poisonous tree. It is fundamentally unfair to derive benefit, now or in the future, from something that is tainted. Unfortunately for those young white South Africans, apartheid – albeit the law of the previous generation, cannot be described as anything but tainted.

The ANC election manifesto was released in East London, South Africa on Saturday last week. The central initiative of the plan appears to be economic policy geared around job protection and creation rather than foreign investment. Some bankers and investors are already shaking in their boots with concern over the role of the Reserve Bank in South Africa going forward under this scenario. Currently, the Reserve Bank’s primary mandate in SA is inflation targeting. If the SARB independence is lost to political motivation, the long term effect could be disasterous for South Africa. Obviously the short term effect of such a decision for the ruling ANC party in the upcoming election is much more prosperous.

Amongst a host of other expensive promises outlined in the manifesto is the promise of the ANC to do what they had the last 15 years to do. This includes addressing the needs of rural South Africa. The ANC claims to be committed to rural development through the provision of land, loans and training for the poor, subsidised housing, rural sanitation programmes and a review of the current land redistribution programme. For those originally from Zimbabwe, these promises may sound quite familiar.

But have no fear, Mr Zuma has also committed firmly to stamp out corruption in South African government. Mr Zuma will hear the decision of the Supreme Court of Appeal today. If he loses against the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) appeal, it is likely that Mr Zuma will be recharged.

Note: There is a poll embedded within this post, please visit the site to participate in this post's poll.